| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
801
|
50Plus MILFs
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Comment
from Tee836:
I was a member of the same website, 50 plus milfs.com.Cancelled my membership 2 weeks after I joined up.I had to cancel my membership right thru their site.Looked up my membership and it said it will expire on the 14th,Anyways a few days ago I was rebilled once again.I do believe they pushed back the date my account would expire by a week so they could rebill on it again.Looking thru my recent bank transactions I noticed a rebill for this website and a phone number.Anyways after dealing with a bunch of bs I was told I would recieve a refund back into my account in 7 to 10 buisness days.We"ll see what happens.I just wanted to chime in cause it"s unfair to the customer when bs like this happens.So anyways just BEWARE if you are a member and you decide to cancel.
|
06-11-10 09:47pm
|
Reply
802
|
50Plus MILFs
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#7
from BadMrFrosty:
(messmer's Reply)
Javascript is not the issue, its the code that can be written and the way the browser executes it that causes the problems. As javascript is not compiled, it is up to the browser to interpret and execute the code as it sees fit. Any security holes are a fault of the browser and are not inherent to javascript itself. bad code can be written to exploit these holes.
Turning of Javascript completely is fine but you will find a lot of sites refuse to work without it. I personally use Firefox with the addon NoScript which alows me to pick and choose which sites I trust to run Javascript and which I do not.
|
06-11-10 01:48pm
|
Reply
803
|
50Plus MILFs
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Comment
from BadMrFrosty:
When a simular concern was posted about ScoreHD I did some investigation. This site uses the same signup form and security, so the comment below which I posted for SocreHD is still valid:
"I had a poke around and it looks like they are using Jquery encryption to send the details to the server via Javascript. So even though the address itself is not SSL encrypted, the credit card details themselves should be. Try the signup form with javascript disabled, nothing works :)"
|
06-11-10 02:43am
|
Reply
804
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#10
from pat362:
(messmer's Reply)
Yes, it's happened quite a few times. I rarely stick with what I see for very long because it's disgusting to watch and no matter how curious I might be. My stomach isn't as strong as my mind.
|
06-10-10 02:41pm
|
Reply
805
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#8
from lk2fireone:
(messmer's Reply)
More often, simply disgusted. But like I said, the older I get, the more crap porn I see, the more tolerant I've become.
|
06-10-10 01:16pm
|
Reply
806
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#7
from turboshaft:
(messmer's Reply)
Guilty, your honor. : - )
|
06-10-10 11:48am
|
Reply
807
|
50Plus MILFs
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Comment
from mr3633:
Hello Messmer,
For what it is worth, I was a past member to this site and didn't have any concerns regarding security. This site is a sister site to the Score network (one that I have also joined without issue). I thought this site was pretty good and will rejoin at some point in the future. Good luck!
|
06-10-10 05:14am
|
Reply
808
|
50Plus MILFs
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Comment
from lk2fireone:
To the best of my knowledge:
The page where you enter your email address, username, and password is NOT secure.
Where you enter your personal identification data and credit card data is NOT secure.
I would check with an expert before I entered any of that information on the pages to join that site.
The pages where you enter that information have:
http:, NOT https:.
http://webdesign.about.com/od/ecommerce/a/aa070407.htm
The URL above explains the difference between http and https.
Do not use http pages to send confidential data. It is dangerous, and can be easily hacked.
|
06-09-10 04:52pm
|
Reply
809
|
50Plus MILFs
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Comment
from lk2fireone:
Look at the address on your browser for that page.
Most pages show http:
But if the page is secure, it shows https:
Browsers used to show a lock icon at the bottom of the page to show the page was secure. But Firefox stopped doing that years ago.
(If the page itself shows the lock icon, that is meaningless/worthless, because that would just be part of the page design by whoever designed the page.)
|
06-09-10 04:41pm
|
Reply
810
|
Public Disgrace
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Comment
from Lionheart:
I joined this site a few days ago, works fine every time I log on
|
06-03-10 04:21am
|
Reply
811
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#10
from RagingBuddhist:
(messmer's Reply)
What? No curling?
|
06-02-10 07:41pm
|
Reply
812
|
Aunt Judy's
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Review
from Capn:
Unfortunately, they have made no attempt to keep pace with the times.
I really can see any evidence of any effort at all.
Cap'n. :0(
|
05-30-10 11:37am
|
Reply
813
|
Aunt Judy's
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Review
from malikstarks:
I agree 100% with this review, I also bit on the whole 'combining of both sites' deal. Unfortunately quantity does not outweigh quality when it comes to porn.
The photographers on this site are the worst, they seem to have an obsession with close ups and gynecological lessons. As you say there are some diamonds in the ruff but you have to wade through so many poor and mediocre shoots to get to them.
Sites like allover30 blow auntjudy's away despite having less than half their archive.
|
05-29-10 10:44pm
|
Reply
814
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#6
from turboshaft:
(messmer's Reply)
That might only protect gay porn...or sites like [ignore]Rentboy.com[/ignore]! ;-)
At most Obama can only be president through 2017, after which the U.S. may have another Jesus freak in charge. We've done it before, there's no reason we couldn't do it again. That being said, I don't think they would be able to outlaw it totally, at least not at a federal level where social legislation gets iffy (except for gay marriage, which apparently just needs a constitutional amendment!). But I wouldn't be surprised if a few states, or just, say, California, loosen their porn laws to what they are in much of Europe and that as a result there would then be outrage from the right as well as 'real America' for new federal legislation.
Think about what happened with Traci Lords in the '80s and as a result now every American video and site has to have the text about how all the performers were at least 18 at the time of shooting. Imagine if a video had some fisting in it and there was no response from the state courts (it would most likely be from California or Florida). The numbnut lawmakers in the U.S. Congress get all upset and huffy that no state laws are in place to reign in 'morals and values' and propose federal legislation to deal with it! After a serious exchange of hot air in the media shoutosphere it's eventually decided that the federal government really can't enact laws about certain content, and as a result a number of states create their own laws and then thereafter every video and site has to include another warning about what states outlaw such material! :-(
|
05-27-10 11:46am
|
Reply
815
|
Anilos
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#20
from The Captain:
(messmer's Reply)
Your memory serves you right. This one slipped through the cracks and its something we need to do a better job of. Hopefully its not all the way for our future upcoming updates as we do shoot ahead a few months, but nonetheless we will get back on track eventually.
|
05-19-10 08:29pm
|
Reply
816
|
Anilos
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Comment
from The Captain:
We have had the policy that for every girl at least half of her content is without toys and dildos, but fingers and masturbation are ok. But it seems you are right. We have not been doing a good job of enforcing this with our producers. I will get on their asses. Thanks for pointing this out.
As for the hardcore, thats just an extra set. We don't shoot any less solo sets if they have hardcore.
|
05-19-10 03:10pm
|
Reply
817
|
Only Bush
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Comment
from mathieuy:
I got membership and had been scamed. The content is very low quality and not exlusive at all.
|
05-16-10 01:36am
|
Reply
818
|
Anilos
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#15
from GCode:
(messmer's Reply)
Weird you mention interviews because that was one of the favorite things I liked about the site. The fact that most were interviewed by a woman which made a better atmosphere in my opinion and the teasing the models would do. As far as the 'more is better' thing, I dunno if I'm right. I'm just throwing it out there :) I think it makes sense but I think it might be a combo of that and the fact that almost every site does it as well. It's probably a huge factor that most sites do it that the directors/producers feel the need to do it to so they are not the odd ones out. I have to agree that I'm sure that the masses must enjoy dildos or that there are just not enough of the majority complaining about it that they must think that this is what the masses want.
|
05-13-10 08:33pm
|
Reply
819
|
Anilos
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#14
from lk2fireone:
(messmer's Reply)
Edit: Another common complaint about Met-art is that the tease factor is missing. There is very little tease or strip-tease.
|
05-13-10 08:25pm
|
Reply
820
|
Anilos
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#13
from lk2fireone:
(messmer's Reply)
Met-art is strictly softcore. No hardcore, no midcore, no masturbation.
If you want more action than 1 or 2 pretty teens standing, sitting, lying down, etc., then you need to look elsewhere.
You should be able to get a basic idea of the site from reading the numerous reviews posted at PU.
There are probably thousands of photosets posted at Met-art. It is a huge mega-site.
There are a huge number of videos, mainly 10 minutes runtime or less. The videos are almost all boring and a waste of time. The models in the videos can be lovely, beautiful, or merely attractive, but the videos are a waste of time to watch, after you've seen a few to get an idea of what they are like. I don't understand the psychology of why Met-art will post photosets of lovely girls that I find erotic, and yet videos of the same models are just a bore. Almost all of the PU reviewers that mention the videos state that the videos are a waste of time.
If the PU reviews don't give you enough information on whether Met-art would be appealing to you, you should be able to find 1000s of free mini-photosets of the Met-art photosets. I mean, there are 1000s of reduced-number of picture photosets on the internet. Many were posted by Met-art itself, as a form of advertising for the site. So if you look at a number of those photosets, you should get a good idea of whether the site is worth your while.
A 1-month subscription is only $20 (rounded off). So it's not expensive.
I've had several 1-year memberships to Met-art, because it's my favorite porn site.
I posted a PU review of Met-art over a year ago. And there are plenty of other PU reviews of Met-art that are worthwhile reading. Some people love the site, some like it, other people think it's over-rated and not worth joining.
|
05-13-10 07:57pm
|
Reply
821
|
Anilos
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#10
from lk2fireone:
(messmer's Reply)
I think I found the perfect site for you to hate.
"Toy Desire is full of young sluts who have never had the pleasure of a fat dick in their tight cunts, after weeks of trying to get them to take fat cocks, we failed, but we did manage to get them to shove just about anything else in their tight little twats, and yes, we got it ALL on video. These girls use cucumbers, strap-ons, vibrators, dildos anything that will give them the orgasm they so desperately need!"
I haven't had a chance to examine this site yet, but it appears to be one that you should avoid at all costs, until you get over your aversion to dildos.
Trying to find sites that you would really like seems to be a much harder thing to do.
I guess I'm lucky, because I really enjoy sites like Met-art. The only problem is that my budget is limited, so I can only join one or two a month.
But if I had an unlimited budget, my mind would blow a fuse, and I'd lose my appreciation for porn. Lol.
|
05-13-10 06:54pm
|
Reply
822
|
Anilos
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#9
from Capn:
(messmer's Reply)
The big guns won't, but the smaller niche guys might.
Cap'n. :0)
|
05-13-10 11:50am
|
Reply
823
|
Anilos
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#6
from Capn:
(messmer's Reply)
'......that must be what the public wants or they wouldn't keep doing it.'
Well, everybody doesn't want it.
As we know it really comes down to what is available.
Not being porn manufacturers, we have to put up with:
a: What we are given.
b: What the majority are perceived to want.
c: What we dislike least.
Unless by continually banging on about it, we finally get given ( sold ;0) ) what we want.
Cap'n. :0)
|
05-13-10 10:06am
|
Reply
824
|
Anilos
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Comment
from GCode:
Ah yes, the dildo routine. I liked this site because of the stray away from mostly all that. I remember even seeing some machine use. I have to say you are probably right when it comes to dildos. I think that just most producers/directors probably just think a models use of only fingers does not give enough 'umpff' to the content. Therefore, the result is bringing in toys. However, I've always thought that the simple use of fingers shows much more erotism amongst models because they are using their own technique in such a simple way to get themselves off. But, back to what I said, I think a lot of makers of porn tend to see more as better and toys are the solution in the eyes of them :( Stinks but it is what it is I guess.
|
05-12-10 08:22pm
|
Reply
825
|
Anilos
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from lk2fireone:
(messmer's Reply)
You can always switch to softcore teen mega-sites if you get really desperate. Have you ever joined Met-art, mplstudios, or similar sites? I realize you appear to like your women a little older, but there are a number of high quality teen sites that are worth visiting. But as I keep repeating, that depends on personal preference. If teens are out, that limits the selection of what is available. I've certainly never viewed all the sets at the teen mega-sites, but there are a number of teen sites that never seem to have heard of a dildo, or even masturbation, and have so far stayed completely away from hardcore.
|
05-12-10 05:07pm
|
